The Turnbull Government may be shifting its approach to tax reform, offering new rules for a single super tax rate which will apply to all Australians regardless of their income.

In its bid to create a fairer way to encourage retirement savings, the Government is now targeting superannuation tax breaks amidst concerns that its proposal to increase the GST will no longer pass the Senate.

The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and others had previously warned the Government that an increase to the GST may be unfair because it would cost low-income households a larger proportion of their incomes.

A five per cent increase to the GST would raise around $27 billion each year, however, about one third of that would be spent on compensation for low-income earners.

Mr Turnbull, whilst claiming he did not necessarily subscribe to a rise in the GST, instead insisted it was only one option for a tax reform that should focus on economic growth and job creation. In seeking a ‘fairer’ tax system for all Australians, according to The Australian, he is now turning his attention towards super tax reform.

It is believed the proposed new rules, now a favoured option within the Government, will create a more level playing field for low-income earners saving for retirement, for whom there is currently little or no incentive. The proposal will also raise $6 billion in new revenue to help support wider tax reform and assist in the funding of income tax cuts.

In what should be seen as good news for many older Australians, the Government’s proposal would not involve any retrospective change to money already saved in existing retirement accounts.

Treasurer Scott Morrison welcomes the proposal of a single tax rate on superannuation.

“What we are seeking to do with superannuation is ensure that people are independent in their retirement and that the tax incentives that are applied to superannuation are the ones that best put Australians who are at risk of not being independent in retirement in a strong position,” said the Treasurer.

What do you think of this proposal? Would you prefer to have fairer taxes on superannuation rather than an increase in the GST? Or would you rather the Government leave super alone?

COMMENTS

if turnball and his cronies think that they are going to raise the tax on everyone's super he is more stupid than he thinks he is and will go out quicker than he came in its time this goverment realises its hands off all pensioners which means for everything let him pay the money he made from his time in having his money in the soloman islands he is as shifty as abbot was same rules different captain.

Cayman Islands I believe.Also, superannuation is a rort for well off Australians who use it to get their tax rates down from 49% to 15%. A nice little Tax Shelter indeed! And then earnings in the fund also are taxed at 15%. ANother bonus.The way forward is to get Australians to pay the full rate of tax and then offer a concession if they put money into their super accounts.The bigger picture is clear: hit average Australians on every side and give high income earners tax reductions, ways of reducing their tax and overseas tax shelters to avoid what the rest of us have to do: PAY TAX!We are in one big shell game. A pity that our citizens cannot see the big picture as the money trail under this government has been clear since day one. We all need to ignore the noise meant to confuse and deceive.

They have tightened up a lot on super contributions over the years and any changes will only hurt the middle class worker who has been scrimping and saving so that they could get a decent superannuation balance together for retirement. What they need to go after is the trust funds and the many ways that only the very wealthy use. The whole system needs overhauling. They need to stop trying to find the easy solutions like raising GST to 15%. maybe a combination of slight raise in GST or include everything and actually lower the GST to encourage spending. Again No government or Country ever Taxed it 's way to prosperity.

As I keep on about, maybe, just maybe, those muppets in Canberra should change their ways (I know, feint hope) and sort out the pork barrelling and absolute waste in the system before trying to rob the taxpayer through higher taxes. Heavens knows we have paid a kings ransom in taxes over the years and now we hit retirement the moungrels want to hit us again ALL BECAUSE they are too lazy to get serious about stopping waste and giving to their mates. There is no need to rob us with a new/increased tax if they started to do the job they were elected to do.

Sorry mick but defined benefit pensioners did pay the full amount of tax before putting compulsory savings into super.That has been badly eroded by the new rules to dis allow that non concessional contribution. The government can no longer be trusted and superannuation is a very dangerous saving vehicle.

Mick, you're talking about a maximum of $35k taxed at 15% against a possible of that $35k being taxed at 46%.... A total of $10,850....hardly a kings ransom...but a sure fired headline grabber for a disaffected socialist. Perhaps a little bit of moderation instead of hellfire and brimstone may have many more agreeing with you. You may even get the pollies, that read every word of this forum, changing their ways....!

Peterrj, defined benefit super was paid as a purchase of units. The unit entitlement was based on your annual salary. The worker paid 40% of the unit price each fortnight after paying tax at the marginal rate.It was a non concessional payment.

There was never a super guarantee portion even after 1992. Defined benefit members never got the superannuation guarantee even after 1992. Thus they never received the tax relief that other workers received.

That 40% was the non concessional amount of the pension drawdown that was discounted for centrelink part pension until Morrison changed the rules.

Now that portion, which had been fully taxed before going into the scheme is counted as income in pension mode.

Rae: the defined benefits superannuation scheme was closed because it was too generous. Of course pollies and some public servants held on for years.The old stroy: you can't have it both way. I would have getting a payout of say 6 times final salary was a pretty good deal. Most people paying their own super would love that sort of deal.

Aquarian.... You might not realize it, but your brain is a code-cracking machine.For emaxlpe, it deson’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod aepapr, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pcale. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit pobelrm.So, if you are having problems understanding jamesmn comment ,just because a few full stops and commas are missing, maybe you have a bigger problem than jamesmn's punctuation to worry about.

My hat is off to you Rae. I'll think long and hard before I next challenge you!!!! I don't dispute what you say in your reply to me. Frankly I don't fully understand that system but you seem to have given a 'factual' account, without unnecessary emotion, how it works. What some don't realise (perhaps many) is that there are all sorts of Defind Pension Schemes with all sorts of different rules. There are even differences between a State and a Comonwealth schemes. Just dumping everyone Into the same Defind Pension bucket does not do them justice. It's a pity that real facts are not discussed on this site and the level of misunderstanding and green eyed bias is almost overwhelming! In a recent post I pointed out that those on a Defined Pension have paid tax, it's not 'tax free' as is often stated. My response was that they hope I pay a whole lot more in tax .... Even though I did not say I was getting a Defined Pension!!!! Such is the level of YLC debate!!!! This post will confuse some as I have referred to both a State and Commonwealth Defind Pension. I'll probably get a reply, 'How come you get both a State and a Commonwealth Defind Pension???' LOL!!

I'm with you Mick. Strange the way the super rich have twisted the argument to scare average Australians into thinking the Government is targetting their super. It is NOT! This is all about silvertails who rort the tax system by artificial arrangements. Within the law maybe, but morally reprehensible.

jjjadams12th Nov 201510:21am

Fairer taxes on superannuation would be far preferable to increasing GST.

Dead right. And maybe the will power to collect rightful taxes from multinationals and those who have the means to minimise their taxes using highly dubious means.Turnbull also should explain WHY he has money in an overseas known tax haven.

jjjadams, No they wouldn't. There is no such thing as fairness in ANY governments language. It's about time we got stuck into them about waste and looking after their mates...then we wouldn't need any increase at all.

Given the incredibly favourable treatment handed to superannuation contributions made by the wealthy by a previous LNP government then some tax adjustment is necessary.Superannuation is not intended to be a tax minimisation scheme but as a means for people to have sufficient income to enjoy a reasonable standard of living in retirement. It is also not intended to be a means to pass wealth down through the generations. It a tax is applied fairly and removes what can be considered as "welfare" to the rich then it would be a good thing and better than an increase in the GST.

The previous government wanted to tax superannuation earnings over $100 000 pa. That was fair enough given that the owners of these accounts were rich people who never paid tax on that money in the first place....and then want to come back for a second bite at the cherry.Of course this government did not go ahead with this legislation. I wonder why?????

niemakawa: you are ignoring the facts. People who pile money into superannuation are for the most part avoiding high marginal tax rates. Suits wealthy people perfectly. So you believe that well off Australians pile after tax money into super? Maybe you also believe in the Tooth Fairy too.Pensioners? You miss the whole (historical) idea of what the pension is here.

Not a Bludger, yes you are so right. However not many on this forum can see that..they all want the heavy lifting done by others. Make the pollies earn their keep and stop the waste...!

mogo5112th Nov 201510:59am

Why can/t their be a joint move towards a fairer Super tax system and an increase in GST.The truth is, the Government needs to raise more taxes for long term sustainability of social justice and fairness for all. Why are we so adverse to encompassing a more modern tax approach for the benefit of the country and its citizens.Of course, the changes would need to include abolition of the ridiculous 'freebies' given to politicians and their treatment as everyone else come 'retirement' time'. Certainly encourage super savings and give self funded retirees a fairer go (I am not one).

We all want a "fair" system. What Turnbull seems to be proposing is nothing more than 're-allocation'..........better known as the shell game. Not fair. Never meant to be. And guess gets caught in the net AGAIN?

mogo51, we, as a nation, are so far down the "socialist" road we are at the threshold of communism. We don't need to raise taxes...just get rid of the waste and the wasteful, stupid politicians who give it away. The system is neither fair nor can it ever be made that way.

Have you actually been to America and seen how average citizens live?America is set up so that the 1% at the top own almost everything and the other end is destitute and earns less than $10 an hour.I personally do not want a socialist system as existed in Russia and China decades ago but I do want an end to the corrupt system of government whereby the rich own and control governments who then do their bidding and shovel money in their direction. Never wondered why the loopholes exist, why they are left open for decades and why new ones keep appearing? Obvious dear boy. As one accountant was quoted as saying when in years gone by the government of the day closed the Bottom of the Harbour tax fraud scheme: "It was good whilst it lasted. Now on to the next scheme". Certainly history has shown that person to have an understanding of the game.

Yes Mick, my wife and I have lived in the land of the "free and the brave". The ones on $10 or less give excellent service and supplement their incomes substantially with tips, something that is taking traction in this country, however not from the same low starting base. You forgot to mention that venture capital is available in abundance in USA for those that want to shake the shackles of poverty, all they need is a good idea.Retrospectively changing the law to make the Bottom of the Harbour scheme illegal doesn't make those who used it as a LEGITIMATE TAX DEDUCTION before the changes criminals. Tell the full story Mick, not just the part that suits your argument.

The tipping system works in some industries but you won't see workers in Walmart and the like getting a tip. Trust me.Come on Fox.....are you really trying to say that a crooked scheme is ok because somebody went into it? Why do you think they went in? Yes.....to minimise their tax. The ATO is clear and always has been that just because it does not come after a crooked scheme this year does not mean that it will not next year.I think that we think differently. You have a business mindset which is often perverse and corrupt by its very nature. I am more on the fairness, honesty and legitimacy aspect of society. A bit of a gap there methinks. I can see we could have some interesting discussions around the bar...but probably end up in a fight at some time. Kidding!

Re the Bottom of the Harbour tax evasion scheme...Actually it was a change of legislation, not a crooked scheme as you claim, that had retrospectivity enshrined in it, that turned innocent investors, at the behest of their accountants and solicitors, from using a legitimate tax break, into criminals. So much for the great Aussie "fair go". I couldn't imagine that you have never claimed any item as a tax deduction that wasn't a little open to interpretation either way.From your description of yourself you are a knight in shining armour, rushing to the aid of the downtrodden....unfortunately that isn't the reality...you got bitten by the socialist bug that makes you behave irrationally.

Anonymous13th Nov 20158:29pm

Mogo, your intentions are obviously good, but I can't believe anyone is naive enough to think that raising taxes will improve welfare. In any case, Morrison has already declared absolutely that an increase in GST would NOT increase the tax take but would facilitate ''income redistribution'' (actually, the proposal provides for a $41,000 pa. tax cut for people earning $1 million per annum or more!)

What we need in this country is for the rich to pay their share of tax and to restore incentives and fairness for the middle class. GST is a highly regressive tax that shifts the burden onto low income earners. Ideally, it should be reduced - not increased. I support the concept of a superannuation tax, but ONLY if it is applied to high income/high balance accounts and incentives are retained for the battlers and middle class.

No, Old Silver Fox. My concern is for fairness. But obviously the green-eyed and greedy can't recognize that fairness means taxing those who can best afford to pay and currently pay far less than their share, and leaving those who have already paid more than their share well alone. It matters not WHO is included in the latter category. The simple fact is that it isn't fair to impose further on those who have already paid, or are paying, more than their fair share. Nor is it fair to impose on those who simply cannot afford to pay. It is clearly fair, right and proper to ensure that those who have the most pay the most.

As for which category I fall into, that's my business entirely. If you care to assume, consider that to do so makes you a prize ASS.

Rainey, fairness in any system of government is a pipe dream of socialists. They spend a lot of time convincing everyone that it is for the common good. This is an admirable goal to aim for but one that is so elusive as to be impossible to attain. Try and recall any instance any government has implemented change and apply your fairness test. It doesn't work, never has, never will. We are all stuck with the government that is voted in, even if we vote against it, hardly call that fair. Then to add insult to injury they want to change the taxation arrangements we all have had to adjust our lives to and live with, again not fair. I don't believe there is a snow flakes chance in hell of making those who can most afford to pay, to actually pay under the present system. No politician has the ticker to take the changes required to the level they need to get effective reform, again this isn't fair. As for supporting a new/increased tax, I'm totally against it...I don't like what the government does with my money and I don't want to give the dills any more to squander. The reality is nothing in this wonderful world we live in is fair, never has been and never will be.

Fox, stop trying to make socialism a dirty word. This is a great country, despite governments not wanting to attempt true tax reform and particularly not getting the wealthy to pay more of their fair share. There are those that may lazily enjoy the benefits of our welfare system and I am happily not one of them and would not aspire to be - there are also those who happily take advantage of loopholes to keep their money for themselves rather than pay their fair share of taxes and I also would not like to be one of them. Many people worship the dollar too much and it makes them lesser human beings.

Kaz, I don't have to make socialism a dirty word...it's actually done a great job itself. The problem with most who espouse this type of government have no idea of where it will lead. You all moan about the social welfare bill and the taxes you have to pay because of it but never do anything to keep the government in check...or to eliminate loopholes for tax avoidance or social welfare fraud.I agree with you that the taxation and WELFARE system need overhauling...but don't hold your breath that this will happen... politicians like their perks too much.Jen, there are plenty of people who spend a lifetime working to support those that won't....socialism needs money to operate as much as a capitalist system does.

disillusioned12th Nov 201511:04am

When large companies pay their fair share of tax, then this country will be better economically than targetting retirees and prospective retirees. Wonder how much tax Turnbull and his cronies pay?

Here, here. I'll believe that this government will go after multinationals when I see it. And given the right for companies to sue our government in the latest version of the Free Trade Agreement I'll wager that no government will pursue these criminal businesses when they plunder the nation.

'disillusioned' don't be disillusioned as big companies won't be paying any more tax than they do now!!!! The new tax horizon will be the untouched savings of retirees!!! How else can we afford to be so generous to those who will soon arrive in Australia???

Peterrj: Governments of both persuasion do not have the backbone to go after the big end of town as this section of society has bottomless pockets to cause political damage to whoever tries it on. WHilst most Australians expect a fair system those who we elect for the most part lack ethics and honesty and prefer to attack those who cannot fund challenges and run anti government propaganda on prime time TV. Remember the Mining and Carbon Tax adds from the big miners? Disgraceful....and should have been taken on, not folding in to.

Jen12th Nov 201511:12am

I'm not too concerned. I feel it's all a smoke screen to take the heat off the TPP which is far more worrying than GST or Super tax.

It has serious concerns from all accounts. But then it will be a done deal soon with Andrew Robb and his fellow plotters long gone by the time average Australians wake up to the fact that they have been done over...again.

Jen & mick, what methods would you employ to stimulate and grow the economy? How would you create an environment which grows jobs?Don't know if you've heard but the unions now like the China export deal and there are no scare campaigns around the TPP?

12th Nov 201511:13am

no good going off half cocked about any of this...nothing has been decided.

Let's stop the Govt talking about constantly finding new taxes, or news ways to increase current taxes - let's get them started on REDUCING wasteful Govt spending - which if eliminated, would mean we could all get REDUCTIONS in taxes.

You miss the real point Aaron: that this is about wealth redistribution. My guess is that you will, as normal, see average citizens copping all of the pain whilst the big end wears a token contribution whilst getting paid off in other ways......which leaves it way ahead.

On the radio this morning I heard that this Government is outspending the Rudd administration at the time he was dealing with the GFC. So much for this conservative government being the careful managers of taxpayers' funds. They are more profligate than Labor was when dealing with the GFC.

Where have you been Karen? Carbon Tax was repealed by this coal owned government a long time ago.FYI: Australians were FULLY compensated for the Carbon Tax. The tax was borne by the fossil fuel industry and it raised $8 billion a year. Since the abolition by the coal owned Abbott government taxpayers have put in, and will continue to put in, $8 BILLION A YEAR...of our money. That's right....we are all contributing.So if you want better taxes read the above. Also forget about the "raising revenue" slogan from this government. It is a 4 word BS statement the same as "earn and learn" as for all the other deceitful Abbott propaganda campaigns. The reality is that you can't grow REAl revenue by rhetoric. You need money. So you have to sell something to the rest of the world......oh yes, our farming land. That'll do it Tangles!

old-age worker12th Nov 201511:34am

If everyone paid their FAIR share of tax, we wouldn't even need the GST - at all.Howard was very good at trotting out "his" budget surpluses, not paid for by expert fiscal management, but by the GST!Regarding Superannuation, the old "reasonable benefits" scheme worked well. It was abolished because it was preventing the rich from amassing vast fortunes not just to pay for their extravagant lifestyles in retirement, but as a legacy for their estates.Us workers have enough trouble finding money to pay bills, taxes AND fund some sort of retirement. I object to subsidising the mega-rich.Tax super - beyond a reasonable limit.

I agree with that. But then the rich feel that they should not have to pay their share.Also, remember that Howard and Costello lived in much better times: huge amounts of money from minerals and NO GFC.

You forgot the tax breaks we all got during Howard's reign. All we have got since he departed have been tax increases and skulduggery on a massive scale by Swan and Co and the successive governments. Anyone who thinks an increase in any tax is for the good of the nation is dreaming. As for the rich not paying their share...what absolute nonsense...just check the facts first...not live with the 50's thinking of disaffected socialists and students that they pay nought so you can pay all. That is the way the world has been since time began....!

OS fox old mate. In Howard's time the grubiment was taking about 25% of GDP in taxes. In Swan and co's time the tax take slipped to just under 20%. Tony and Joe got i back up to about 22%.

So it seems the COALition's claims to be the small government low tax government are bull s--t. They spend more than Labor and take in more tax. Why do people believe their spin? Why does Labor not give out the true figures so people understand the deceit of the silvertails?

Batara I don't like the way ANY government spends my tax money....neither side is doing a good job. As you think labor is the panacea of all ills go and read Swan's last budget...in it you will find voluntary contributions to super by you and I were reduced from $50k to $25k, EXCEPT that didn't apply to Politicians, Permanent heads of govt. departments and the JUDICIARY...they had their noses in the trough, thanks to your mate, whilst we had to pay for it. Don't try and put it about, with any credibility, that labor is for the worker, because they aren't. Swan and Co are the true silvertails, and with a crazy socialist bent...! Goof Whitlam saw to that.... between he and Hawke labor went from representing the worker to screwing them....and successive govts., of both persuasions, are now hell bent on turning this country into a super soft socialist, all inclusive, group hugging mob of nitwits.

Old Silver Fox: you seem to live in dream world. Clearly you are a part of the problem and are protecting your patch rather than confronting honest government and what is fair.I might remind you that the Gillard government FULLY compensated Australians for the Carbon Tax. What followed was a blatant lie run by the Liberal Party for its election funding Coal Industry alliance.As for your statement about the rich paying their fair share all I can say is that you are using the familiar twisting of statistics method of denial. The reality is AS A PERCENTAGE the rich are paying zilch. If you earn $2 million a year and pay $100 000 in tax you would say this is heaps but the reality is that this equates to 5% of income. Maybe compare that to the norm for most Australians who pay multiples of this. THAT IS THE ISSUE....the tax system has been rorted by outs for the rich........superannuation tax shelter, trusts, company deductions which are often dubious deductions, profit sharing, etc. There is a long long list. You know that!

Mick, personal denigration is the recourse of the intellectually inept. Gillard, Rudd, Swan and all their camp followers did massive damage to our economy. This is a familiar scenario for labor...they have no idea on the prudent spending of other people's money.

It is better that I pay $100k from my earnings than suck more than that out of the system by being a welfare recipient. The ones on the bottom of the pile are looked after very well by welfare...poor choices keep them on the bottom. Your advocacy for these does your credibility no good.

Your constant banging on about 'the rich' leads me to believe you have made some poor financial choices in your life. if you were financially secure your attitude towards wealth would be different.

Sorry Silver Fox but you, like most disciples of the thr right, ignore the facts. A familiar path.First, the Howard government ruled in the best of times: world economy going gangbusters, mining boom at peak and NO GFC. Second, Rudd won office when the GFC hit. Whilst I never agreed with handing out money like confetti the government ensured that Australians were not thrown onto the unemployment scrapheap like the rest of the world. Funny how you forget to mention that. Third was the problem the Rudd government faced: how to produce 'instant' jobs. Whilst I would have loved to have seen infrastructure projects fast forwarded I understood that these could not be trotted out at the drop of a hat.If you want to talk about "massive damage" then talk about the this government's record: abolishing the Debt Ceiling so that it could borrow on forever at levels way above the previous governments, the paying off of the coal industry costing taxpayers $8 billion a year, the butchering of the NBN which is now costing us more than the original proposal whilst delivering a bad outcome, the breaking of most of the core election promises,etc. This is the short list.I'll take any questions Fox.You are totally incorrect about my life decisions. I am not at retirement age but retired early and now travel overseas annually. Whilst certainly not rich we do ok and will NOT be accessing the age pension. No worries.Sorry that you cannot handle the fact that I champion the downtrodden. Whilst we will agree on the welfare dependency many of our citizens now call a life 'choice' I will never defend the wealthy who have set up a system whereby they pay very little AS A PERCENTAGE into the national pool. I have a fundamental dislike of crooks! Sorry.

Mick, your selective memory is in overdrive again. When Krudd got the reins he inherited an economy going gangbusters AND a large war kitty....both of which he succeeded in destroying in record time. I take solace in your assertion that you will never have recourse to public funds...you are living the dream of your downtrodden subjects. It gives me a warm inner glow to know that my taxes can be put to use on some other poor buggers bingo sessions.

Queensland Diva12th Nov 201511:37am

I am all for a fairer superannuation tax system - especially if it FINALLY addresses the wealthy and their tax minimalisation through super. A rise in the GST would hurt low and middle income earners and compensation paid by the government would not address that sufficiently.

The rich are rich because they have made greater sacrifices or have invested wisely and taken more risks. Maybe you none of these! Everyone has to take responsibility for their own actions in life and stop whingeing incessantly about the "rich" No I am not rich but I have total respect for those that are.

I can relate to what you say niemakawa having made sacrifices which would make most of us pewk. It has been tough. But now we are at a wonderful stage of life and are able to come up for air.My issue is that taxpayers need to be able to grow their wealth but not avoid their (tax) responsibilities. The big end of town have 'cheated' for time immemorial and are of the opinion that hand to mouth taxpayers should pay for them. That belief is perverse and plain wrong. So we teeter between an American style slavery system and a communist style welfare system. We need a fair system in between and we need to end both ends of the spectrum and what it breeds.

Anonymous13th Nov 201510:04am

I agree with you too niemakawa, most of the ordinary rich have made sacrifices etc. most did not have a silver spoon and deserve to enjoy their wealth. However, I do have a problem with the super rich who stash their incredible wealth overseas in tax havens, they are the ones and the big corporations the government must go after.

Anonymous13th Nov 20158:44pm

Wrong niemakawa. The MIDDLE CLASS are affluent because of hard work and sacrifice, and it is they who are being crucified by this government. The rich either inherited wealth or were incredibly lucky in some way. You cannot get rich by making sacrifices and investing wisely.

Yes, everyone should take responsibility for their actions, but we need to consider circumstances and opportunity. I don't respect anyone who has inherited wealth or been very lucky, and I certainly don't respect people who refuse to pay their fair share of tax (and most rich do refuse!). Nor do I respect people who won't try to be self-supporting or who demand welfare unfairly. But I do sympathize with those who have been denied opportunity or who have suffered major crisis or trauma or were born with disability. I think our priority in this society should be first and foremost to support those who - for genuine reasons - cannot support themselves, and then to reward those who have struggled and sacrificed.

Unfortunately, this government's priority is to feed the greed of the privileged, and they so so at the expense, primarily, of those who struggled and sacrificed. Just consider the most recent pension changes. They make battlers who achieved moderate affluence worse off than full pensioners, forcing them to spend their savings just to live and to drain their assets continually until they can finally qualify for the benefits given to those who didn't strive and sacrifice or who cheated to qualify for benefits they are not morally entitled to.

Sadly, any tax changes are likely to reflect the same attitudes - i.e. to target the middle-class and upper working-class battlers and leave the rich well alone.

Getting Older...12th Nov 201511:40am

if the government learned to actually budget its money rather than spending what it doesn't have then tax hikes would not be required.

If it went after companies that transfer money offshore then it would reap billions in lost income.

Perhaps a foreign borrowings repayment tax on money repaid to foreign entities that is not subject to tax might be a start.

I believe that the Royal Commission into Union Corruption witch hunt cost taxpayers $80 million. I do not know what the witch hunt going after Gillard cost. What I do know if that neither of these pollies were shown to have a case to answer.These huge expenses are the tip of a very big iceberg with governments spending public money (our money) like confetti. IT CERTAINLY NEEDS TO END!!

Lets not change the subject. I'll back the routing out of corruption...at both ends of society Fox. The Liberal Party instigated Royal Commissions are political tools to discredit Labor going into an election. Nothing more. And taxpayers are expected to fund them. This is just corruption at work and those who instigated these are much worse than any union member who has abused his or her trust.So lets have a GENUINE rout. We don't need Royal Commissions to achieve that. Just a specialist police investigation unit with far ranging powers which is not restricted or prevented from going after the big end of town.

Is not changing the subject...its just bringing you back on course. Have there never been any Royal Commissions instigated by labor....? As for your idea of a police state....straight out of chairman Mao's 'Little Red Book'.

None that I can remember set up for the sole purpose of smearing the other side. This is the mode of operation of the Abbott era."Police state", "little red book".....so what time warp have you come from Fox. You must be stuck for facts to trot out this sort of propaganda and BS.

Not really, no time warp I just highlighting the rubbish you had just written. As for police powers to deal with the big end of town, go ask some of the prominent citizens you despise, about the National Crime Authority and their treatment in the star chamber. Tax office has all the power they need, and they exercise it every time they do an audit. Now your selective memory has kicked in again Mick, just google labor initiated royal commissions and start counting, and they are all politically biased and done to discredit their opponents.

I think that the Carbon Tax needs to come back. It was working, did not cost average Australians anything and was only repealed because of the obvious relationship between the fossil fuel industry and this government. In my humble opinion it appears that the repeal of the Carbon Tax appeared to be little more than fraud as the public was sold out on a lie and for the benefit of vested interests which are known polluters and the apparently the prime cause of climate change. It is wrong for any business to be effectively 'buying' votes with their election funding contributions.

It's a ictory for everyone, no increase in the GST .... It's only those who have responsibly saved for their retirement and have money in Superannuation who will be taxed!!!! Yeah, that's really great news!!!!

it is not a new strategie for any gov in general to start changing a tax which will affect people who will feel the change the most. It is somehow easier to raise the money this way, rather than to have a courage and wisdom to challenge a wealthy people to start equally contributing to the society.The peoples power however can't be underestimated.

Nor can the apathy of ordinary citizens and the fact that they are easily swayed with dishonest media propaganda.

Phil194312th Nov 201512:38pm

Memo to PM Turnbull: Keep your greedy hands off my super. You've taken a system that was meant to enable me to provide for my own retirement and are trying to turn it into a source of revenues to compensate you for what you're unable to get from major international businesses. Wrong! And don't tell me that you can raise the GST and somehow compensate everybody who's affected. Self-funded retirees without any pension support will just have to pay more. And if this is expanded to fresh food and healthcare...we oldies will throw you out of government. If you don't believe me, just watch. In the meantime, listen to what's said in forums like this. Your 'honeymoon' as PM is just about over and divorce is always an option.

Mick, again you miss the main point. Make the proponents of tax increases JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS. If they can, and I doubt it, then it is time to go to the negotiating table and talk numbers. ALL politicians, like most people, will take the easy way out and claim there is a need for something without going through the process of proving it.

Agreed. What we are currently seeing from Turnbull, and I'll give him time to show he is fair dinkum, is talk about a fairer tax system. I wait to be proven wrong but what I suspect is going to happen from this government is the shell game. Expect to see the rich getting more tax decreases in the name of 'lower taxes'. But expect a few crumbs to go to average citizens whilst the bulk goes to the top end and we are hit elsewhere with the result we are all paying more for the few.You have to look at the history of the current government. Who has it gone after for the past 2 years? Answer: average Australians at every opportunity. And in case I forgot to mention it company tax rates have been lowered once and the business lobby is calling for the next round!

This government is looking at all options.Something will have to be done and some of us will suffer. we don't need to go down the way of Greece,Italy,etc.Whatever is done for the good of the country will be whinged about by some groups.You can't please all.Lets hope the Senate realises this.

As long as the "good" is not a word which is manipulated to apply to average citizens only. That is the game....talk the talk and then skin average Australians whilst at the same time setting up the next rort for the wealthy. How do you think that the current superannuation Tax Shelter for the rich came about? NOT BY ACCIDENT!!

I agree!!! And how else can we give more refugees a comfortable lifestyle in Australia without tapping into Superannuation money tucked away in a tax haven retirement fund??? Retirees have to suck it in and think of the greater good their money can do for the less fortunate in the world!!! So why shouldn't Superannuation savings be taxed at a reasonable rate that is more than affordable to retirees????

Peterrj, ...The way the governments of this world, with a "social conscience", are opening their doors to the ""lifestyle refugees" we will all be giving up our super savings to ensure they are fêted like visiting royalty.

Given the last 2 years I'd suggest that the track record tells us that it is mismanagement much worse than from Labor and of course playing the shell game with the desired end result: that average Australians are hit hard whilst the well off have only token measures so that they appear to be a part of the pain....which they will not be!

Tell us all about TURC Frank. You know. Your usual mud slinging exercise at Shorten, Gillard, etc........ALL of whom have never had a case to answer. So please go back to your bosses in Canberra and ask them to use their own money to fund smear campaigns. Not public money.

don12th Nov 201512:47pm

Leave it alone. What about all the talk , like Google takes 20 billion out of the country tax free plus others. I thought they were going to tax them and all problems solved.??

The correct place to start. Plenty of talk from Turnbull but yet to see anything come out of it. I suggest that NOTHING will change and that we are seeing the next set of lies from the next leader of the same bunch of Howard left over misfits.

A bit funny DC. This government in opposition blamed the then Labor government for everything. Now that they are in power they are still blaming Labor because they refuse to take the rap for the major mismanagement which has occurred over the past 2 years. You know....huge deficits, butchered NBN which is now costing more than the original cost, etc.One thing about the right. It is never their fault!

12th Nov 201512:48pm

I've gone over this one many times.... doubt I can add much, except that not matter which way the cookie crumbles, we'll be paying for it. Thus I advocate a total revamp of taxation.

Mick, you have been prolific once again on this subject. Always the same thread - blame the current government for everything! So no surprise here then, but who exactly would that be: No vested interests???? Everybody in this place has an interest one way or another.

Absolutely no vested interest. Ever. I despise both sides of politics because both sides are dishonest and perverse and think nothing about betraying those who elected them. And neither side cares about the nation as it is a game for them with the main interest THEIR entitlements and what they can out of the system personally.Clear?

Mick, great and brave statement, coming from you, but you have not actually answered my question: Who, in your opinion, would be the someone "overseeing" what is fair? Would have to be someone from outside the country since everybody here HAS a vested interest.

I'll bite.1. Vote in Independents who are self funded for their campaign2. Outlaw donations from vested interests: that includes direct donations, jobs after politics, money to family members, and delayed payment. Can be done!Legislation will jail terms a must for those who bend the rules. They'll try it on.Problem fixed.

maelcolium12th Nov 20151:31pm

No wonder people are pulling their money out of superannuation accounts as soon as they get their hands on it! There have been so many changes to super over the years that it is now seen as better to keep it out of the government's clutches.

Low income earners will never be able to save enough for their retirement. Middle income earners will stop making additional payments and the high income earners will continue in their SMSF's with impunity.

In polite circles this is called a dog's breakfast and in others a cluster f****

I have a super pension but realised 30 years ago that it was a scam.My scheme made 3% year after year and we all know that is impossible unless there is some dodge going down.

I started investing outside of super and beat the scheme every year on returns with a much smaller spend and paying tax.

Those investments are still directly in the markets as an individual and I have never regretted the decision I made to go that way.

There is simply too much sovereign risk involved in super as well as market risk.

Chris B T12th Nov 20151:42pm

It dosen't matter where they raise tax from, set a minimun RATES CAN'T BE REDUCED PAST THIS POINT. The MAXIMUM RATES WITH NO LOWER RATE THRESHOLD ONLY ENCOURAGES RORTING. Until then ALL BULLSH##!!! on how to improve TAX REVENUE.::::::::-)

The big issue is TAX COLLECTION. Not from those of us who cannot mount expensive legal challenges but rather from those who can, and do and who have legislative 'outs' to pay very little.Let's start by collecting the FULL amount of tax from multinationals. These are the companies who will shortly have a legal right to sue our government......compliments of this business owned government which has provided this clause in the soon to be ratified Free Trade Agreement.Then let's fix the superannuation system by removing the ability to make pre-tax contributions.After that let's look at some of the many dubious deductions the rich have available to them as well as Trusts which achieve the same purpose.After that let's talk about a GST and the highest taxed country in the world. But then we will not need a GST then will we!

There is No Deterring Limits Set For Any Tax Revenue.As for Superanuation base on the average income for any TAX Benefits. Until Minimum Rates Set, Multinationals, Business in general as well as Individuals will try to minimize there TAX AS MUCH AS THEY Can.No lawyers required, Name anyone who Pay's The Full amount of Tax on Earnings. Top Limit is just that the most anyone has to pay.( TAX Deductions, Offsets etc.)The Reducing of Tax and Placing Earnings in Low Tax enviornments is legilimate for All.Thats WHY WE NEED LOWER LIMITS SET For Tax Renenue and SET AMOUNTS FROM A REASONABLE Income Level to be Placed In Superanuation for benefits. (For me I would say 10% of AVERAGE INCOME)GST IS A STATE TAX, I belive at least 60% of earnings should go to the State where earnings came from at least.

Be careful when use use the word "minimisation" as it is often a synonym for avoidance. Wolf dressed up in sheep's clothing!As with all things the INTENTION needs to be the prime determinant of whether a taxpayer is avoiding his responsibility. And yes rates and limits need to be adjusted. Down.What we really need is an ARMS LENGTH TAX RULING whereby people can be brought down if it can be shown they are acting against the intent of the system which sustains almost all of us. Can't be as difficult as it might first appear.

ozrog12th Nov 20151:49pm

Back to super again. When will they realize its not theirs its ours. Hands of our super.

ozrog, you are correct...it is our salary that was sacrificed to pay the 9.5%...not a gift from the government...however, that arch dill, leader of the opposition, had the temerity to call superannuation "a national asset"....so now all the left wingers think it is a community asset that they can do with what they please....like open the doors for lifestyle refugees...!

Uprorious laughter........superannuation is a "national asset". Yeah right. For the wealthy superannuation is a means of avoiding the tax system. Nothing more.If you think that superannuation is not going to be milked by both sides then you are in fairy land again Fox. You should know that the current government wants to nationalise it and just needs to find a way in. Then it is game on!Talk about "lefties" all you want but confront the issues. I thought so.

Mick, check back through the news broadcasts of the last few months and you will see your hero, or alter ego, your choice, telling the world that superannuation was a "national asset". Made my blood curdle to think of the implications of this downright lie. As for your continued assertions that the wealthy are using super to avoid tax, how about showing some verifiable data. Blind Freddy could see what the government was up to...first step is to regulate it, second is to nationalise it, third is to use it for the 'common good' i.e national debt reduction. Be under no illusion, the govt. wants to get their hands on it and are currently working on ways to do so. The only thing that will stop them is US standing up to them.

I don't care who uses that terminology. It is a political stunt.If you want data I point you in 2 directions. First check out how many very high income earners pay either no tax or tax of a zilch nature. Funny that. Second check out the superannuation balances of the top 10 000 Australians.

As I suspected, there is more than a fair smattering of left wing thinkers in your list Mick. Probably there because they inherited the wealth OR GOT IT FROM RORTING THE SYSTEM....,! It wasn't from hard graft, cause they don't do that stuff, just appease their consciences by chattering about it and wanting everyone to feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Zulu12th Nov 20152:11pm

Trevine is close to the answer...perhaps if politicians had to invest in super in the same exactly manner as average Australians and were subject to the same post employment conditions as the rest of us, instead of being afforded a variety of (guaranteed) benefits/perks that are funded by the taxpayers, they might be more circumspect and empathetic in the way in which they so gaily play with our savings for retirement. Having said that, there is no question that with the increasing welfare burden faced by us, even if we could manage to reduce the excessive government spending & inefficiencies (irrespective of who is at the helm), the only way of ensuring we do not end up like Greece is to either drastically cut back on welfare (you know the reaction to that) or increase govt. revenue by, surprise suprise, taxes. If you don't like the idea of super being raided, which personally I believe should be left alone and , if anything, be structured more to encourage savings - then bumping up the GST appears to be the best & probably most equitable option.

Zulu...no way do I think an increase in taxes the way to go...cut welfare, especially to the middle classes. Doing this, combined with waste reduction and rort removal should give us all a hefty bonus and see most taxes reduced/eliminated. As for increasing GST, Turnbull wants to keep his job so it won't happen.

Heskwith12th Nov 20153:16pm

It is an improvement. The GST rise affects most of what we spend on a simple life, and food is only a little part of that. It cuts shockingly into the poorest, whose earnings are way too low to be taxed at all, and whose expenses far exceed them; savings are dwindling. But taking more Super tax does far better; it leaves alone those of us who earn so little from TD's or from Super (going down anyway) that no tax is paid. Our essential bills will not grow.

Yes. That is the issue. The poor and average Australians spend 100% of what they earn to SURVIVE. The rich spend only a small percentage on survival and invest much of their money to make more.The result is that an increase in the GST (and widening the base) goes after those who consume all. The weapon of choice from this government. But what do you expect from a government owned by the big end of town?

Supernan12th Nov 20153:56pm

What is currently unfair is that people may take $1,000 's of dollars out of their annual income & not pay tax at all on it, providing they put it into a super fund. Why should they not pay tax on it ? Its for their benefit in the future.

Why should some-one take out - say $200,000 - from a $300,000 salary & only pay Tax on $100,000 ? How can it be fair ?

No-one is suggesting increasing Tax on income coming to people from their super funds.

Is that what is proposed. If so the non concessional component changes recently made by Morrison makes sense. I would not be surprised if retirees were the only people in the world expected to pay double taxation.

Silver Fox: Misleading! Fund earnings are taxed AT 15% for the life of the fund and then can be taken out as a lump sum TAX FREE on retirement.So lets not just concentrate on the initial annual bonus. ANd lets face it why should wealthy Australians be able to have a second tax free threshhold after already getting an $18000 bonus?The only thing "misleading" here is your post and your attempt to misconstrue the facts.

Not misleading Mick. The fund is taxed in the accumulation phase, when it changes to pension phase it is tax free. For someone who professes to be up with the details this is one you missed. You must be wealthy then Mick as ALL taxpayers get the $18k bonus. Your poor grasp of what is what is misleading to the readers.

Good try Fox. You must be getting a bit desperate mate.In case you do not know: funds are taxed AT 15% in accumulation phase. The top marginal rate is around 49%. Yes?You are just acting dumb with the tax free threshhold. Of course all Australians get this. My point was that rich Australians take this and then use superannuation as the second bite of the cherry. As I said money put into super attracts a 15% tax (yes?) and then is also taxed at 15%, not the top marginal rate (yes?).So let's stop the BS mate.

Not so fast Mick, all you have done is regurgitate what I had posted above. Rich Australians are as entitled to use the system as your downtrodden disciples. If the downtrodden got off their butts and did some honest graft over extended periods they too could avail themselves of the "tax rort" of the rich. So maybe you should stop the snow job, mate....!

Tomaso12th Nov 20154:10pm

Knew it, they were definitely after the super funds, thought we already pay 15% going in ????. Wouldn't trust any of them the ratbags all of them. Get rid of them.

12th Nov 20155:03pm

labor mick loves giving us the views of labor lefties.

Pass the Ductape12th Nov 20156:08pm

Another hair brained scheme designed to raise funding for not much more than a pay rise for politicians.

If they want the people of Australia to believe their fair tax B/S, then they need to convince us that they'll drop off all the other taxes, as promised by Howard at the time a GST was mooted. Instead we are paying a 10% GST on top of many taxes already in place and they'll have a hell of a time convincing me at least, that they intend to be fair. I've heard all this crap before and I'm well and truly over it!

What about ex-Taxpayers who paid the full rate of their gross income before the introduction of salary sacrifice. If we saved money from our salaries, banked it and earnt interest we paid tax on it too. If after the age of 55 you transferred your Super to another type fund that you had to withdraw a % regardless of the balance whether you were still employed or not, you paid tax on it too. Prior to the introduction of GST there was a few different rates of sales tax. It goes back to the 1930s or prior. My late Mum and my late Uncle managed my late Grandma's shop before and during WW11.

Jim C12th Nov 20157:19pm

Maybe slightly off subject - someone will no doubt put me in the picture if it is - but has this country ever considered going the UK route of a guaranteed State Pension based on National Insurance contributions compulsorily made from earnings over a person's working life (judged as 44 years initially, reduced to 30 then, when the government realised it was unaffordable at that rate, increased up to the current 35 years) and tied to the UK National health service which, despite grumblings, is still a far superior product, for many more people, than the Australian Medicare system. This State pension is paid irrespective of any other income from whatever source (whether company pensions, annuities etc) and is index-linked annually (except for those of us now living in certain countries where this Pension is frozen, including Australia) for the lack of a reciprocal agreement. There is, consequently, a far lesser reliance on private Super accounts, which of course are subject to the vagaries of the stock market fluctuations and the decisions of Federal government regarding tax rates etc.

Back on subject - I will not be alone, of course, in "insisting" that the Federal government looks at the more obvious ways at raising funds by getting the major companies to pay their fair share and being unable to hide their assets in offshore accounts etc. Hitting battlers in their pocket may appear easy, but the ballot box is a powerful weapon.

Trevine, I would not give such advice butI totally agree with the rest of your comments. Tax deductions is the carrot to delude workers into thinking that they are getting a good deal by putting aside today's money to later be used in retirement. That's the public fraud being inflicted upon those silly enough to think that they will later reap their reward for going without today. But Those with $400,000 in Super at pensionable age get a greater yearly income than those with $1,000,000 in Super due to changing Age Pension rules! I say, save in Super then at pensionable age spend like there is no tomorrow down to $400,000. Why? The Aged pension for a couple is $33,000 plus a few benefits say $2,000 plus draw down 5% from the $400,000 ie. $20,000 which gives you a total income of $55,000/yr. However, with a little over $1m you will exceed the Age Pension asset upper limit and you will rely solely on your Super savings of 5% which gives you an income of just $50,000/yr. These figures are a bit rubbery but you get the drift! If you have a Million in Super then spend $600,000 and then receive a greater yearly income! Did I say the Super is nothing but a fra being committed on the working public? Saving Super money will deny you Free Money at pensionable age and they will keep changing Super rules to take away your savings in tax and higher living expenses for non pensioners! Superannuation in retirement will only be worth the effort if you can have a Super balance of well over $1m, say at least $1.5m. And who has such a Super balance???? Any Super balance over $400,000 is wasted effort!!!! And forget Tax, it will be the Retirement Hostels that will later take your Super savings ..... But if you have no assets then it's free!!!! Saving for your retirement is a mugs game! We all play the game and we will all get rorted in the end! Just ask those on a Defined Benefits Pension what they now think of retirement plans??? Those with Super will be the next casualties!

Trevine: both sides of politics are circling superannuation like white pointers as they want a slice of the action. Its a pity that governments believe that OUR superannuation is theirs to take but this is the mentality in Canberra. WHat do they say: nothing corrupts like absolute power?

You quote was close Mick, but back to front. It is attributed to John Acton, 1sr Baron Acton. Who said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."Methinks he was talking about our illustrious politicians.

12th Nov 20159:49pm

australia is in trouble, paying more then 40 percent to those on the tits of receiving welfare of this country, example, our boat refugees, after 5 years on welfare, check the figures, still don't speak our language and get upset when government ask them to look for work, are more than happy to hold their hands up for more and bring their family over to also feed on our taxes. call me a racist, when I arrived in this country, more than 55 years ago, I got a job next day, pick and shovel, yet when shopping I had a dictionary with me and stores were only to pleased to help me as were my working mates, tell me any of you winging pensioners how much you or your family received in welfare, did you receive payments for putting your children into childcare while you and your wife went to work, or would you have agreed that the government pay your father and mother, real or in-laws to look after your kids, you would have been to ashamed, but it is the normal to-day, did your wife get money to have a baby, did you get 6 months off work with pay to get to bond with your own baby, did you get a first home grant, yet keep on winging while the government is looking at all possibles how to get us out of this mess, at least let us wait to see what comes out of these enquiries before you get your guts into a knot.if you don't agree with their decisions, all we have to do is wait for the next election, as what you call the rich, jealousy blinds your comments.

heemskerk99, well said. What you have highlighted is the middle class welfare this country can NOT afford. However the recipients, in general, believe that they are entitled to it. This attitude, along with governments failure to act to reduce social welfare reliance and labours 'touchy feeley' policy towards the lifestyle refugees has been a large contributor to our current problems.

Whilst your comments mostly border on the brain dead I have to agree with some of this rhetoric. We have indeed become a welfare state where governments on both sides BUY votes with handouts.Whilst you have an 'opinion' about me let me put straight about a few things. First I have probably worked harder than you ever have and lived tighter than you as well. Real tight! By choice! My wife and I never received the first home buyer's grant. We never got Kevin Rudd's helicopter money. We do not agree with middle class welfare. Never have!What my wife and I do agree on though is that the system needs to be FAIR. The issue is that it is not and never has been and that wealthy Australians have set up so many rorts and outs that poor and average workers have no ability to utilise. That's where the problems lies....not about the left or the right but about THE ISSUE OF FAIRNESS.I am waiting for the next election and sincerely hope that voters start spitting out both sides of politics and putting people in who are not enslaved to either big business or the union movement. That is the way forward!

This is what real Australians think Mick. Dare I say that there is many common thought by both of us, it's just you taint yours with obsessively attempting to denigrate your fellow Australians, just because you perceive they are rich. As for fairness, there is no society that is fair, never has been and never will be, it is just human nature to take advantage of the situation.

A bit unfair Fox. I call for FAIRNESS. That is where we differ. You want the rorts to stay and call it an achievement. I call it for what it is: the blatant abuse of those who have the least by those who are doing ok. What have we as a nation become when we think like this Fox?

Wrong Mick. Fairness is the delusional dream of the disaffected socialist. Impossible to achieve in our society. The REALITY is very different, it is ever present and in our face and we must deal with it on a daily basis. We are what we are...That is the difference between you and me, I'm a realist and you're a voice in the wilderness calling for the unachievable. As for the future of our nation..I have unerring faith in our future generations to sort out the wheat from the chaff and I think they will do a better job at it than us.

Aquarian12th Nov 201511:18pm

Holy cow jamesmn. Where did you learn English. No capitals and no punctuation at all. I have read your commet 5 times and still cannot understand what you are saying ???

Aquarian....Seeing you put your comment about jamesmn in two different places I'll put my reply in both places .

You might not realize it, but your brain is a code-cracking machine.For emaxlpe, it deson’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod aepapr, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pcale. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit pobelrm.So, if you are having problems understanding jamesmn comment ,just because a few full stops and commas are missing, maybe you have a bigger problem than jamesmn's punctuation to worry about.

Peterrj13th Nov 201512:11am

I am a bit sick and tired of reading negative things about 'the rich'. Pray tell, can any of you mob give me a definition of what you mean by 'rich'? I have floated my definition of rich retirees being those of pensionable age who do not qualify for the Aged Pension due to having too much income or too many assests to even qualify for part Aged Pension. I am confident that those who just fail to be eligible for the Aged Pension do not consider themselves to be rich! So can we have some clarity .... Who are the rich retirees you whine about all the time???

Somebody who earns over $250 000 pa or who has assets in excess of $3 million? How long is a piece of string?Oh by the way....my wife and I will not be drawing a pension under the current rules!Who are the rich retirees? The ones who live in an expensive house in a select location with retirement incomes over $150 000 pa and significant assets. That should be a good starting point for a discussion.

niemakawa13th Nov 20153:38am

One tax for all. The more one puts in the more one receives in retirement. That is fair.

That is called the GST I believe.The problem with the one size fits all is that poor people can save NOTHING because they do not even have enough to in some cases put food on the table. The other side of that is the wealthy who employ accountants and lawyers who use a system set up with plenty of 'outs' to minimise tax to zilch....and then, just like the pharmaceutical industry at the recent senate enquiry, claim that they are paying the designated amount of tax. Oh yes....Turnbull did the same a few weeks ago...he's the guy who has money in the Cayman Islands Tax Shelter....there for the fun of it.If life were only that simple niemakawa. Unfortunately we lack a truly fair and transparent tax system where the rich are, for the most part, the biggest crooks on the ship.

Rosret13th Nov 20159:35am

Self funded retirees are NO, not low, income earners with no tax benefits ie rates, rego, health cards etc. I have done without in order to retiree with enough money to be self funded. 25% of my salary went into trying to make myself self sufficient. People just a few years older than me have a guaranteed super payout. We have the rip off private superfunds. What I didn't foresee was virtually zero % investment interest rates AND a rise in the GST. Can we introduce euthanasia pills for the elderly at the same time as legislation goes through so I can future plan!

GST should not be expanded and it should not be raised and Govt. should look at the social benefits rort to save the money. All Australians should live decently and nobody should be allowed to cheat the system. Single Super tax rate is a good idea for all new contributions and tax on income should also be on new money put into the system. Changing the rules for the money already saved in the account is sort of penalising people who have worked hard and saved throughout their working lives to be self funded. Self funding retirement should be encouraged and all the incentives should be given to people but the misusing of the super accounts and using it as a tax heaven should also be stopped ie limit the contributions anybody can make and if people want to contribute more they should pay the full tax before any contributions can be made to the super account.

Anonymous13th Nov 201510:09am

Absolutely agree wellwisher "self funding retirement should be encouraged" as you say.

Pretty right wellwisher. The Safety Net should be that and those who manage to save a bit for retirement should be encouraged....but not with massive taxpayer handouts which simply transfer the taxation system onto those who have the least cash and assets. Equity mate!!!

Anonymous13th Nov 20159:00pm

Agree with both of you guys. More people should save for retirement.

13th Nov 20156:47pm

hey, why complain if anybody puts their own money into their super, on top of their boss contribution, you also can do that,why complain if anybody puts their money in a so called tax haven, you also can do that,as long as it is done legally and within what the law allows, you also can do that,we seem to be so obsessed with the rich, tell me what is the definition of being rich, do we call anybody rich because they have more money in the bank, live in a bigger house, in a so called wealthier suburb, my opinion of the rich is so simple, THEY ARE CLUER THAN ALL OF YOUR WINGERS!!!!!!!, forget about your moanings and left ideas, the only way to fix this situation is to elect people who got the good of this country at heart, not those so-called independents, as labour mick loves you to believe in, all they are interested in is becoming another party with their name on top and give their second preferences to one of the main parties, but genuine people who have the good of this once great country at heart, as the saying goes, UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL, just take note.

I agree with you. Maybe the "whingers" are hoping that if the so-called rich are taxed more it will mean a larger "handout" for them Well I say they are seriously deluded. This Country needs more entrepreneurs and go-getters as at the moment it is top heavy with free-loaders.

I'm going to have to change my avatar to Alfred Doolittle. I'm one of the underserving poor. But then you don't have a clue about why I don't deserve to be poor. Be a little afraid of the glass house you live in. All your self-righteous bluff and bluster won't fend off the vagaries of fortune or misfortune. It could happen to you. It did to me.

Maybe the goverment should look at the costs to the taxpayer ,when Public Servants opt out of employment on the 54/11 (54years and a11months of age ) where they get 2.5 times thier super for retiring paid by tax payer ,what other industry has 2.5 times super how is that fair ,I personally dont understand how this systems works, public servants work hard but so many other people in thier employment work hard too where is 2.5 times thier super?

Adrianus16th Nov 201511:17am

If Super rules need to be changed every other year, then what more proof do we need that it is a broken down piece of garbage which needs scrapping. Why these constant changes and short term fixes to a 50 year investment? Leave it alone, or make it right for the next 50 years, or scrap it altogether. Somehow, I don't think any of those solutions will appease the "poor me" crowd.

Scrivener16th Nov 20155:36pm

It is NOT a 'super tax', it is a Superannuation tax. 'Super' has far too many connotations to be used so flippantly by any professional journalist.

17th Nov 201511:13am

When you talk about the rich in regard to super you are talking about the higher paid Salary earners.. This group already pay over 90 per cent of all the income tax collected.They pay 48 per cent of their income to the pay for middle class welfare which is churning to pay for civil servants .They pay on top of their income a 1.5 per cent levy to pay for govt debt . They have to pay 1.5 or 2 per cent of their income for State health insurance scheme .They are forced to take out private health cover or face a tax penalty. The truly wealthy have their own companies and do not need super to provide an income in old age .

The lowest paid pay no income tax yet are forced to pay a 15 per cent tax on their super savings.

Super contributions are not paid for by the recipient but by employers .

IMO opinion we should cease middle class welfare such as Family tax credits and bulk billing of GPs visits to all those not in need .

Super Contibutions are not high enough to provide a reasonable income in retirement say two thirds of last salary .

I feel recipients should also contribute to their own super say 5 per cent of salary thus raising to 15 per cent the amount going into super . The amount Keating felt was necessary.

Further all contributions to super should be tax free whist in accumulation mode.

It should be taxed on draw down at the same rate as other income.

Super should not be in the hands of Banks or Unions . It should be held and invested by the Future Fund as is civil servants and who achieve a higher return than the banks.or unions..

The future fund should be required to put a percentage of its funds into Australian infrastructure .

Circum17th Nov 20155:02pm

The idea of making the superannuation contribution fairer by removing what is considered a tax rort by higher earners is to be congratulated.A 15 % tax concession by all people does not affect lower earners and if far preferable than increasing the gst which will affect many peoples standard of living.Suggestions of compensation for those negatively affected by a gst is a pipe dream for many and wont happen..eg.self funded retirees and some other groups.

Anonymous17th Nov 20155:19pm

The discussion is about super not GST How does charging a 15 per cent tax on the lowest paid for their super contributions aid them to become independent .